Jeremy Payne

it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go.

Yeah, that's just not how we roll in the good ole US of A.

There are good reasons to regulate certain businesses where there are externalities and systemic risk ... but we'd prefer to allow people to work out little problems over photographs amongst themselves.

Maybe in a nanny-state like the UK this would work, but it would never, ever fly in the US.

Regarding Bernie M, that is surely a failure of legislation and its implementation that allowed the chaos - criminality of the most astute kind! Well, second-most, as the most is never discovered as having taken place at all. That it failed does not imply that it (control) should not exist but rather that it should be taken more seriously from now on.

Rob C

Rob, I hate to say it, but your argument reminds me of the arguments I hear from people who tell me how stupid, incompetent, crooked, and generally sub-par our politicians and government bureaucrats are, and in the next breath tell me about some problem the government ought to solve through regulation. What the hell do these people think the "government" is? Somehow they're able to detach the people who actually are the government from "government" in the abstract. Furthermore, if "legislation and implementation" fail, how, exactly, is that legislation and implementation to be "taken more seriously" thereafter. I guarantee that if the government passes a wedding photographer law, by the next morning our legislators will begin to receive visits from lobbyists bearing gifts, hired by a photographers' coalition demanding that the law be implemented in such a way that only coalition members will qualify.

As Jeremy pointed out there are types of business that actually require government regulation because of potential impacts on the whole economy, but photography isn't the kind of business that's likely to cause some sort of systemic failure if it's practitioners use point-and-shoot cameras. Regulation, even of the kinds of businesses that can cause systemic failure often falls short. We just saw an example of that with real estate financing here in the U.S. I'm sure the regulators who were watching over the malpractice of those lenders and borrowers felt that their own oversight was "close enough for government work."

Government is a blunt and usually stupid tool. The only people in government I've met who are pretty consistently intelligent and observant are military people. That's because those who aren't soon go on to a better world.

Russ, that's a terribly damning view of the US style of governance. I heard something somewhat similar this morning on the news where an expat American journalist living in London was trying to explain (in the ten words allowed such voices) the difference between what the Obama idea of a state health service is and the European one. Seems it's okay to die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because you can't afford private health. I thought that had passed into history along with Bessie Smith in her own pool of personal blood. I wonder how many US citizens really figure out what state health can mean, rather than painting it in a political wash that smacks of the Red under the Bed era.

Rob C

PS This post edited from original because too many personal bits of info for considered comfort! Actually I wish I hadn't risen to the bait at all, but there you go.

Rob, It's not a damning view of "the U.S. style of governance;" it's a damning view of all modern styles of governance. The main reason the U.S. has been so successful is that before we began to change, around 1933, we had much less government than most other countries. Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely.

There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Rob, It's not a damning view of "the U.S. style of governance;" it's a damning view of all modern styles of governance. The main reason the U.S. has been so successful is that before we began to change, around 1933, we had much less government than most other countries. Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely.

There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Happily, I had my eightieth birthday last Tuesday.

Russ, I have edited my post to which this was your reply, not because I don't think I was correct in most of what I felt, but because I think I went into too much personal detail that can be problematic for me and also for anyone who wants to dispute what I wrote, which wouldn't be a fair way to discuss, sort of like holding a bleeding heart to ransom, as it were.

Belated birthday greetings, by the way; you are younger than you thought!

fredjeang

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

1. "Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter."

Reply 1. As far as I am aware, getting those nuts pulled out of the fire took one hell of a lot of British persuasion and some pretty heavy shylocking, so to speak. However, I do believe that Maggie Thatcher paid the last bit off during her reign. For my part, I am grateful for all the help! I rather even a socialist UK than one under the jackboot. I think.

Regarding the spending of that treasure, didn't it help fuel the entire war machine, from aircraft, ships to munitions? Some say it was boom-time for the US. Deaths? Since when did any governments care about figures on any side? Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The returning body-bags never stopped anything - it was all masked with memorials and fine speeches about glory and honour; feel proud to die for nothing.

2. "I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely."

Reply 2. I love the straw man blowing away in the wind: reminds me of Dylan so it can't be bad! But I think between war and dying we have had more than one straw man doing his thing tonight.

3. "There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." "

Reply 3. There is no doubt that all politicians know this: they are even thinking (in the UK) of lowering the voting age to sixteen! Imagine, a culture of sixteen-year-olds, many totally illiterate and unschooled in anything but street violence, suddenly finding they are offered the vote! Like all sub-cultures, they will vote eternally for any party that provides them with free, tender loving care and glue. Why else are some political parties so willing to tollerate unlimited immigration if not to broaded the lowest common denominator of voter base permanently in their favour? Harsh but true. And anyone who dares voice that can well face lawsuits in Britain.

The British National Health System is mistaken for a free one. No such deal. It is financed from taxation and probably costs more than it should because of the layer upon layer of administrative lead resting upon its shoulders. It isn't even financed evenly: when I was still working I paid a standard contribution added to another self-employed penalty - sorry, contribution - of 8% of my earnings... Interesting system. But at least you can get help if you need it, sometimes in time.

Reply 1. As far as I am aware, getting those nuts pulled out of the fire took one hell of a lot of British persuasion and some pretty heavy shylocking, so to speak.

I canít deny it. But of course the Brits jumped to the sound of the trumpet as soon as Churchill sounded it... Didnít they..? Oh, golly, seems to me that according to Churchill they didnítÖ until the wolf was already at the door.

Quote

However, I do believe that Maggie Thatcher paid the last bit off during her reign. For my part, I am grateful for all the help! I rather even a socialist UK than one under the jackboot. I think.

Maggie certainly pulled Britain back from the brink of catastrophic socialism, but as soon as they managed to get her out of there the lemmings turned right around and headed back for the cliff again.

Quote

Regarding the spending of that treasure, didn't it help fuel the entire war machine, from aircraft, ships to munitions? Some say it was boom-time for the US.

War always costs a great deal and ramps up production. But war materiel doesnít increase a nationís wealth. War goods arenít ďcapitalĒ goods. If you believe they are you need to pick up a good book on economics and do some serious reading.

Quote

Deaths? Since when did any governments care about figures on any side? Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The returning body-bags never stopped anything - it was all masked with memorials and fine speeches about glory and honour; feel proud to die for nothing.

Rob, I lost several close friends in 26 years of military service: in pilot training, Korea, and Southeast Asia. I can tell you without doubt that they felt the risk was worth it and that I felt the risk was worth it. I had two tours in Southeast Asia. I felt, and still feel that that war was fought very badly by some extremely incompetent generals and some cynical and dishonest politicians. But I also felt and still feel that we needed to be there. What happened there after our cynical and dishonest politicians shut down our involvement makes that case beyond any reasonable doubt. To really believe what you wrote in the paragraph above, oneís knowledge of history would have to be quite disconnected from the facts of that whole era.

Russ, I doubt that anyone of a certain age - myself very much included - has missed the war bereavement experience. That is personal and my reference was to what I believe to be the feelings of governments : they do not care about returning bodybags, regardless about the way the press likes to pick up on them and, as now in the UK, keep an almost daily running total just for effect. Sky News does that a lot. I have no doubt that relatives get some consolation and pride from heroism and monuments; what they don't get are satisfactory answers. I have often wondered about that when I see how most who can afford to seek out Mercedes, BMW and Lexus. You can hardly walk in a village in rural France without coming to the little sign that tells you the names of locals who were shot during the last occupation; the roads are full of D plates driving south each summer and everybody seems happy. France and Germany between them appear to run the EEC. What the hell was it for, all that dying?

Regarding Maggie: if you think about it, it was her own bunch that did the stabbing out of what I can only see as male envy and inability to accept a woman as boss. The Falklands got equal heapings of praise and condemnation in the UK press and you might have been forgiven for thinking that the Belgrano was a British casualty by the noise that was made about its sinking! Sweet Lord, who invaded whom? Oh, and those French Exorcets did well for Argentina's generals, didn't they!

And I hear that they are thinking about further Argentinian adventures there now that oil has entered the equation... Where are Maggie and Nelson when every man might well be 'expected to do' again.

But I don't think this helps the photo thread any, however much we might believe in what we think.

fredjeang

Taking the risk to irrupt in this conversation, and with a certain dosis of provocation, I admit, I would say that maybe all that dying convinced France and Germany that they better run the EC. Selling Exocets to any buyer today, and condamning it tomorrow, but still the missiles are working well...I would like to see a French or English digital camera. I've never understood why the biggest war loosers, Germany and Japan are the best camera makers?Is there a direct relationship?

Rob, I'm not sure there are such things as satisfactory answers. I'm quite comfortable admitting that I don't understand God's creation because I'm not equipped to understand it. All you ever can do is the best you can do.

Quote

But I don't think this helps the photo thread any, however much we might believe in what we think.